M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

172,602.74 38 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 450,000,000 2-May-11 1,890,397.99 21 2,330,136.99 80,000,000 3-May-11 80,000,000 6-May-11 42,032.59 3

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of certain expenses, the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee. The AO subsequently initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act by issuing the notices dated 29th February, 2016 and 09.08.2016. The AO initially levied the penalty under section 271AAB vide order dated 30.08.2016 @ 10% of the undisclosed income total amounting

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty 3 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. order dated 27st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

172 taxmann.com 611\n(Delhi - Trib.) (DC 14-16) held that,\n“6. The ground no. 2 to 4 of appeal are in respect of single issue i.e. disallowance made\nunder provisions of section 43B of the Act in respect of Goods & Service Tax payable.\nThe short contention of the assessee is that GST amounting to Rs.3

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

172 taxmann.com 611\n(Delhi - Trib.) (DC 14-16) held that,\n“6. The ground no. 2 to 4 of appeal are in respect of single issue i.e. disallowance made\nunder provisions of section 43B of the Act in respect of Goods & Service Tax payable.\nThe short contention of the assessee is that GST amounting to Rs.3

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

172 taxmann.com 611\n(Delhi - Trib.) (DC 14-16) held that,\n“6. The ground no. 2 to 4 of appeal are in respect of single issue i.e. disallowance made\nunder provisions of section 43B of the Act in respect of Goods & Service Tax payable.\nThe short contention of the assessee is that GST amounting to Rs.3

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty under section 271AAB

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance of Rs.30,35,538/- being 10% of the amount of Rs. 3,03,53,582/- claimed as application of income. 3. First of all, we take up the appeal of the Department for adjudication in relation to the above mentioned grounds of appeal. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Department wherein

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

172\n36. With due respect to the view taken in the aforesaid cases, we are unable to\npersuade ourselves to follow the same.\n37. Insertion of 'Explanation in a section of an Act is for a different purpose\nthan insertion of a 'Proviso 'Explanation' gives a reason or justification and\nexplains the contents of the main section, whereas 'Proviso' puts

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

172\n\n36. With due respect to the view taken in the aforesaid cases, we are unable to\npersuade ourselves to follow the same.\n\n37. Insertion of 'Explanation in a section of an Act is for a different purpose\nthan insertion of a 'Proviso 'Explanation' gives a reason or justification and\nexplains the contents of the main section, whereas

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Assessee has strenuously submitted and justified that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is required for having deposited the employee’s contribution to relevant fund before the due date of filing of return of income and even before the end of the relevant previous year. 7. Further with respect to the issue

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the\nCourts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on\n'merits'. The expression sufficient cause employed by the legislature is\nadequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a\nmeaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the\nlife-purpose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

172). This interest is considered as incurred on advancing the funds to related parties without interest/at lower interest. Considering all these facts the disallowance made by the AO is restricted to Rs. 24,42,040. The balance disallowance is deleted. In the result, this ground is partly allowed.” 7. The Revenue is aggrieved from the findings

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

3 persons there is difference in signature in the salary sheet for the month of February, 2016 and August, 2016. This cannot be considered to be an incriminating material to assume inflation of wages. Hence, the above decision supports the case of assessee. Similarly, Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in case of M/s MGF Automobiles Ltd. has only observed that

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

3 persons there is difference in signature in the salary sheet for the month of February, 2016 and August, 2016. This cannot be considered to be an incriminating material to assume inflation of wages. Hence, the above decision supports the case of assessee. Similarly, Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in case of M/s MGF Automobiles Ltd. has only observed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3), Kolkata that they are Directors in the various companies which is controlled & managed by Mr. Anjani Banka. Statement of Mr. Anjani Banka was also recorded by the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-2(3), Kolkata on 29.03.2014 wherein he accepted that he is engaged in providing accommodation entries in form of share capital, unsecured loan, LTCG etc and to facilitate

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory